Sultans of snoot
I’m still trying to pin down what I think about Glenn Beck, but I know what I think about many of his critics.
They’re sultans of snootiness who don’t want to admit that we all have addictions.
Columnist Kathleen Parker, who likes to pile up points by putting down Sarah Palin, saw raw meat in Beck. She attacked him because he was addicted and admits his need for healing, recovery, and restoration. She would have liked him to greet the crowd by saying, “Hi. My name is Glenn, and I’m messed up.”
That’s a lot better (and I suspect, more accurate) than saying “My name is Kathleen, and I’m so smart.”
She writes that Beck uses “the language of the addict. . . . ‘You know, we all have our inner demons.’” She complains, “For Beck, addiction has been a defining part of his life.”
True. And it’s the same for everyone. All human beings are at some point, and some are at all points, addicted to created things rather than the Creator. Drugs, alcohol, and pederasty are among the generally unacceptable addictions. Adultery, lying, covetousness, and thinking murderous thoughts regarding ideological opponents seem generally acceptable in America today, especially if the perpetrator covers his tracks.
The reason Glenn Beck resonates with many evangelicals is that he’s using Alcoholics Anonymous language, which derives from Christian language. We should recognize the tribute he is paying to biblical anthropology but we should not be taken in by Beck’s theology. For example, Christians know that we become righteous by imputation (Christ’s obedience in God’s sight replacing our failure), but Mormons trust in infusion (we become godlike).
For a quick look at some Mormon concepts, see this 2002 article from WORLD.
Beckites need to be careful not to think of themselves as virtuous and their opponents as vicious. The Christian understanding is different: All of us sin and fall short of the glory of God. When The Times of London newspaper nearly a century ago invited G.K. Chesterton and several other eminent writers to contribute essays on the theme, “What’s Wrong With the World,” Chesterton’s response was brief, profound, and biblically correct: “Dear Sirs, I am.”
In short, some of us may be addicted to substances, others to praise within the circles we consider important. When we realize we’re all in the same boat we often see that we have nothing to hide. We make progress when we admit sin and recognize our helplessness before it, apart from Christ.
Beck vs. Parker? I’d much rather learn from someone who admits his addictive nature than from someone who seems to deny hers.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top136 Comments to “Sultans of snoot”
Great summary of Parker’s article. I read it too and it seemed spiteful. But I do know many Christians who are sucking up Beck’s theology without realizing the inherent errors.
I like his politics, can’t stand his church
David, http://www.redletterbelievers.com
Report comment to moderator
I reread the article. I watch Beck on TV, and sometimes listen on radio, but not often.
Knowing that he is Mormon, I, as a Baptist, listen carefully. I have never heard him describe Jesus other than his saviour and Lord. He has never stated that there are three Gods. Nor mentioned that Jesus will return to Independence, Mo.
I am convinced that Beck is a “born again” Christian if he believes what he says.
Romans 10:9, “If thou shalt confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.”
Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, nor anyone else has authority to pronounce who is a Christian.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t watch or read either of them, but I knew who Glenn Beck was and not this Kathleen Parker.
Most people who have been through some tough times lose the arrogance provided they admit they’re weak human beings. Whatever Beck said at the rally resonated with a lot of people. Ms. Parker can’t make that claim.
Report comment to moderator
CHAS: I don’t understand. Mormon theology is heretical. Beck is a Mormon. It’s doubtful he’s so uninformed about the religion to which he ascribes as to be unaware of its distinctives. He’s a heretic–*the Bible* gives us the authority to make this assessment.
We should be very careful about affirming someone (Beck, onlookers to these threads) in the fundamental errors of his or her theology.
I pray Glenn Beck will have the humility to turn from his error to the true Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Chas:
Mormons don’t believe in only 3 gods. They believe that the God of this universe was once a man who was exalted into godhood and with his divine wife procreated all the rest of us, including Jesus and Lucifer as spiritual beings. All of us, in turn, after we are incarnated, are “gods in embryo” who can be exalted and then create our own universes.
They will ofter use the same language as evangelical Christians, but salvation and redemption, and Jesus the Christ and Savior have very different meanings.
Report comment to moderator
Good article, and I learned a couple of new words.
Report comment to moderator
Some people join the Mormon church for other reasons.
My neighbor’s son-in-law joined so he could make more money. (From the horse’s mouth.)
Some only see how nice they are and the charity they perform for those in need. (Lots of good stuff going on.) Some people feel it’s just another Christian church. Early on they teach your children and newcomers the same stuff they would learn in a Christian Sunday School. They even call themselves Christians now.
BUT those entrenched in the Mormon community won’t see the ugly side until they attempt to LEAVE the Mormon church. You could lose your whole family. If your wife divorces you, which they will encourage her to do, they will find her another spouse–usually a man who needs a mother for his children. (witnessed that one)
I think Glenn is too smart to believe he will become a god. Or he feels he doesn’t measure up.
Hearing Glenn speak in the past about his “Christianity” I feel that he knows what is right. He just wants a nice community for his family and is turning a blind eye to what lurks within that community.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Chas. I have also heard Glenn Beck give his theology and as he states it, it is Christian. I have experienced this before with a Mormon in a Christian bible study. She was also a former Catholic, as I believe Beck may be. Later, in another setting she did talk about some points of theology that were very different from the bible’s.
It may be at some point that Mr. Beck will leave the Mormon Church. I hope he will. At this point, God will meet him where he is, just as he has met us all where we are and then wooed us to Himself.
We should keep in mind that God has often used ‘pagans’ to reach his people. Perhaps he is doing this with Glenn Beck. If so, we better take care lest we are not on God’s side, but on the devils.
God won’t need me to point out who belongs to him, when we are standing before him. I’ll leave that up to him now, too.
Report comment to moderator
KI (#8),
Thanks for your comments.
I completely agree!!
Report comment to moderator
Beck had no discernible theology in his speech. It was nothing more than a “positive thinking”, god is on your side no matter what you do or think rally. He seeks to be nothing more than Head Cheerleader for the disaffected. But his real motivation has nothing to do with religion of any kind.
Report comment to moderator
“We should keep in mind that God has often used ‘pagans’ to reach his people. Perhaps he is doing this with Glenn Beck. If so, we better take care lest we are not on God’s side, but on the devils.”
Could you give an example of this?
Report comment to moderator
KI, it is not being on the devil’s side to point out that this man is officially a heretic, that he has not renounced his false religion, and that by publicly being identified as a Mormon but sounding like a Christian, he is leading others astray. Is it possible he is genuinely born again? I won’t say that’s impossible–I do say it is highly unlikely, and I also say it isn’t the issue here. The issue is that he is publicly leading people to believe that Mormonism is just like Christianity. Whatever his personal faith in Christ, or lack of it, that makes him, as a teacher, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and that must be pointed out for the sake of the flock. It would in fact be “devilish” NOT to do so.
Report comment to moderator
I grew up in a part of the country where, apparently, there were more Mormons than JWs. (In Chicago and Nashville I have gotten JWs coming to my door, but not Mormons. In Phoenix it was Mormons. There are towns in Arizona that are majority Mormons. Our next-door neighbors were in fact Mormons.)
My churches had Sunday school classes telling us what Mormonism actually believed. I suspect a lot of Christians really don’t know, so when they hear the words that “sound right” they assume they mean the same thing. But when a Mormon says “Jesus Christ is the son of God, and he is my savior,” he doesn’t mean what we mean by “Jesus Christ” (he wasn’t virgin born, but born from sexual relations between God the Father and Mary), “God” (God himself used to be a man and is “God” of this planet, and we ourselves might someday be God of our own planet), or “savior” (we aren’t saved through faith alone by grace alone in Christ’s work alone, but by works). They also have new “scriptures” in addition to the Bible (Book of Mormon and a couple of others, including the Pearl of Great Price and I forget what else) and new revelation.
I really don’t care if they get the words right, unless they say, “I used to be a Mormon, but I have renounced that, and when I say ‘Jesus Christ,’ I mean Jesus as He is declared in the infallible Word of God, the Holy Bible.”
When I was in Bible college, I forget what class, the professor once played a video of a man talking about Christianity. I knew one or two sentences in that it was Mormon and listened with fascination to hear how “close” it sounded, but how many places it just didn’t quite sound right. At the end of the film, the man in it held up the Book of Mormon and announced it as new revelation from God. An audible gasp ran through the classroom. To my amazement, a huge percentage of the class (maybe most of the class) had watched the whole 20 or 30 minutes assuming we were hearing genuine Christian doctrine–and I can only assume that was the professor’s point in showing the video. People, this was in an orthodox Bible college, and the students hadn’t caught the differences. Mormons DO NOT publicly highlight their differences. They try to sound like Christians.
But as Paul said, if God’s own apostle or an angel from heaven preaches any other Gospel, let him be accursed. This is a doctrine of demons, even if it was preached by the “angel” Moroni. Satan has his angels too, and this is a demonic doctrine. It is therefore a cursed doctrine, and Glenn Beck is a heretic, no matter how much he may speak correctly on some issues, or how “good” he might sound when he talks about religion.
Report comment to moderator
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians were used by God to get his people’s attention. Habakkuk was quite upset by this, among probably many, many of God’s people. Of course, the end of the Babylonians was not going to be good.
The whole bible is filled with the strange ways of God. He even used a talking donkey!
Is God using Glenn Beck? I don’t know. If he says something you see as going against God’s word, reject it and point it out. If Christians are so ignorant of God’s word that they cannot discern the differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism, shame on them, unless they are baby believers.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, I wrote before I saw your post. I will say that I have had a similar experience and most of the class was completely taken in. I have also seen New Age doctrine taught in Christian churches using the names of Christ or Jesus and not at all meaning what the bible means. Such things should at least shame Christians into getting on the ball and back into the word.
Report comment to moderator
From Nebuchadnezzar to the New Agers, they’re ALL WRONG.
KI: If your god used talking donkeys (and walking talking snakes)and that’s okay with you, I suppose “seeing stones” and talking into a hat could be legitimate godly communications, right? And if you claim the earth is only 30-odd thousand years old and you believe in a Jesus, then mustn’t you admit that he might have come to North America?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Arcadia, God can use whoever or whatever He wants. He made it. It all belongs to Him, including each of us. He will even use you how He desires. In the end, we will all stand before him.
Report comment to moderator
Very well put, KI.
Report comment to moderator
Evangelicals and Glenn Beck
Dr. Jim Garlow (I don’t know him)
Some has been said and written about evangelicals “compromising” by sharing the stage this weekend at Glenn Beck’s Friday night Kennedy Center event (for approximately 2,000 pastors and Christian leaders) and being seated on the platform (nearly 200 seats) of the Lincoln Memorial during the “Restoring Honor” Rally on Saturday, August 28. This all stems from the fact of Beck’s Mormon faith.
I have not been criticized for going to the rally (at least as of this date), but I have seen writing attacking two men in whom I believe: James Robison (who will not even be at the rally, but whose video might be) and David Barton. Both of these men have impeccable credentials in our biblical faith.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1144072
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Jim Garlow’s article (via Chas’s link) is disappointing. After reading him, I can’t conceive how he would apply the verse in Galatians that Cheryl D. alluded to earlier. If a Mormon does not believe another gospel, which exalts another Christ, I don’t know who does.
As Cheryl D. also mentioned, nobody is attempting to usurp God’s power by making biblically warranted assessments about another’s theology. In fact, that’s a big reason *why* much of the scriptures were written–so that we may discern the true from the false and warn others where they misstep.
Christians can work with Mormons to accomplish this or that noble goal, but I listened to a random 10 minute portion of Beck’s speech on the radio and he frequently invoked God’s name. Every time we nod in agreement with such references, we’re unwittingly affirming a false God!
Fascinating account of the film shown in your classroom, Cheryl D. Very illustrative.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the link Chas.
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase what Chas said several weeks ago: Show me what Glenn Beck has said that is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
KI: In the end, we will all stand before him.
Translation: Be afraid, be very afraid?
I am curious, do you really believe that non-believers suffer eternal torment by fire? And that if you are eventually re-united with deceased family members in heaven, all the traits about them that drove you nuts, or even that you hated, will all have disappeared? And that despite the fact that you will have nothing to do, you will be eternally happy? Will you have a body or a mouth to smile and laugh with? Or will all of this take some place on some ethereal plane with a much more abstract version of happiness? I can’t imagine being very very happy without being able to smille and grin. I’m not sure that any kind of happiness which can’t be expressed really is happiness. Honestly, I can’t even come close to wrapping my mind around anybody’s conception of such places that I have ever read.
I guess if I somehow were forced into a religion, something with earthly re-incarnation might be more vivid or credible.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu: If you don’t say anything significant or even just a bit controversial its hard to be wrong. But telling or even just allowing people to think that your god wants exactly whatever it is that you want and that whatever it is that you are thinking you have your god’s blessing is a private one way conversation, the meaning of which is dependant entirely who the listener is.
It’s just about the oldest political trick in the book.
Report comment to moderator
I think people who are concerned with power fear Beck & Palin the most because they see the celebrity factor rising and they know that could make Beck and Palin huge forces in contemporary American culture and politics.
Report comment to moderator
So Arcadia things Glenn Beck has never said anything controversial. Hmmmm.
Report comment to moderator
#22 – RONDU, excellent post. To the point.
In the backdrop of some of the tension at play over Beck is, I think, that so much of America is caught up in a celebrity mind-set. People are afraid that this guy is becoming a celebrity and they KNOW that in America today, there is much power in being a celebrity with some convictions. They fear that sheep will follow. O well!
Gone are the days (if they ever were) when we could just listen to public figures and measure their message objectively on its own merits and take the good and leave out the bad. We live in the era of image & celebrity and very few of us can escape that in any high-minded way.
As for Beck, I like his message more than I like his style.
Report comment to moderator
Too bad about Kathleen Parker, though. Most of the time she’s one of the smartest and hottest conservative writers out there (hottest, both wit-wise and looks-wise)… Check out some of her columns:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker.archives.asp
…but then sometimes she picks on people I like.
Report comment to moderator
Joel (#27),
I understand what you mean about Beck’s style – but, try listening to him for a substantial time and see if you don’t begin to appreciate it.
If one assumes that Beck is, in fact, sincere, then I ask: would you be any less impassioned if you were that one who is speaking?
Report comment to moderator
Show what Beck has said that was wrong? He’s a professing Mormon. What more is there to ask for?
Report comment to moderator
Mac – read the previous posts; that ground has been covered.
Report comment to moderator
Olasky’s post is unfair to Kathleen Parker.
First, Olasky improperly criticizes her for “putting down” Sarah Palin. Parker wrote several editorials which offered pointed criticisms of Palin. Parker’s criticisms of Palin were far more tame (and less spurious) than the criticisms that World Mag’s editors made of Elena Kagan. Were you guys just “putting down” Kagan for the sake of putting her down? Of course not. You believed that your point had merit, even if others may have disagreed with you. In the same manner, Parker’s criticisms of Palin have some merit, even if you disagree with her.
Second, Olasky has overstated Parker’s criticism of Beck. Nowhere does she criticize him merely because he is an addict. Rather, she criticizes him for making his former addiction the centerpiece of his public persona. After all, if conservatism is to succeed in America (as it is starting to do in Europe), then it has to be something other than an addiction recovery program. It needs people who can accept their frailty, trust in Christ’s grace to forgive, and let the past be the past. For example, Paul calls himself the “chief of sinners,” but he didn’t spend his latter years wringing his hands about his former conduct. So, I think that Parker has a point.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, Why do you need to either twist people’s words or put words in their mouths? I just stated a fact. I never said anything about being afraid. Whether or not one fears God is up to them. It is the beginning of wisdom according to the bible.
Frankly, you always sound so bitter and unhappy, I can’t imagine you being happy anywhere. Hopefully, that will change someday, but it isn’t up to me.
Report comment to moderator
“The Success of the Beck Rally.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/31/the-success-of-the-beck-rally/
“FOR REASONS THAT HAVE nothing to do with Glenn Beck — television the celebrification of America the eternally human tendency to be attracted to powerful persoalities — it is critical to remember that events of this nature are not about the speakers but the participants.”
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Do you mean that ground was covered in previous posts in this thread? It was offered that concerns about Beck’s Mormonism could be dismissed merely because he, supposedly, hasn’t “said” anything wrong. Is that your opinion?
Report comment to moderator
Re the link in post 19, which I read several hours ago, I had to take some time to think about it, and then I’ve been busy and unable to get back. Here is what I’ve come up with as a response:
This man is a Mormon. That is, by definition, a heretic. If he were speaking as a Muslim and affirming Jesus Christ, but not refuting Islam, Christians would be saying, “But he can’t be a Muslim and a Christian both. Therefore, as a practicing Muslim, he is not a Christian (although he may have had a silent, unacknowledged conversion, and he is now a Christian and not a Muslim).”
Since Beck has not refuted Mormonism, he must be seen as a Mormon, and must not be “followed” in a religious sense. Even if, for the sake of argument, he is a new Christian, he still should not be followed, since he has not renounced his former heresy and since he is a “novice” and thus not biblically qualified to be a leader in the church.
Those thousands of pastors who attended the event, frankly I don’t care how pure their motives are, and this is why: They are knowingly lending their support to a heretic who has not renounced his heresy. This is wrong. If they wished to be part of this event, and believed Beck to have renounced his heresy but not yet made it public, then biblically they really must verify where he stands. Don’t just say, “Well, he says the right words.” Jesus pointed out that demons themselves can use the right words, that even demons acknowledge Him as God’s Son.
But I want to know CLEARLY, and these pastors were biblically OBLIGATED to ask, before lending their support to a known heretic:
Are you a Mormon? How do you reconcile Mormon belief with biblical Christianity? Are you willing to go on record as refuting Mormon doctrine that is not in agreement with Scripture? (And then name areas of major disagreement for his approval or disapproval.) Do you believe God has given additional revelation beyond the Old Testament and New Testament?
If he will not answer such questions, or his answers are not satisfactory, a Christian cannot support him, and a pastor must not. Even if he will answer such questions credibly, I think we still have the problem of novice believers being placed in a spot of leadership. (The apostle Paul himself received several years of preparation, as did all of Jesus’ apostles, Moses, etc. And the Bible simply demands of spiritual leaders that they not be novices in the faith. This isn’t my private decision.)
We make a mistake if we decide that we “need” this gathering too much to subject it or Beck to Scripture. God can use a donkey if He wants to. And the devil can come as an angel of light if we aren’t vigilant, deceiving even the elect.
Report comment to moderator
Mac (35) My view is that if all of his statements are consistent with orthodox Christianity, especially with its essentials (which is what people more familiar with him have claimed, and those claims have not been disputed), then the fact that he says he’s a Mormon does not preclude the possibility that he is an orthodox Christian. Your whose position appears to be that his status as a Mormon absolutely negates it. Although I admit the following comparison is imperfect, it does illustrate the point: I think that the Catholic Church’s theology, as expressed by those at the top, has some problems. However, I know rank-and-file Catholics who appear to be born-again Christians just as much as anyone in an Evangelical church.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I know you said the comparison was imperfect so I am not criticizing you. I do think, however, that Catholicism is not put into the same category as Mormonism.
I also don’t know if Beck is a believer or not, but if he is, he will hopefully be given more light on the church he has embraced.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m still trying to pin down what I think about Glenn Beck, but I know what I think about many of his critics.
They’re sultans of snootiness who don’t want to admit that we all have addictions.”
I also think that Ms. Parker’s article was on the snarky (snooty?) side. However, as far as “we all have addictions”, many of us who are believers are only beginning to see what we’re really like. I think the Lord slowly keeps revealing our “addictions” (”besetting sins” might be more accurate) to us as we walk in the light. We could not bear it if it was an instantaneous revelation. Sometimes I think we have no idea of the magnitude of what the Cross of Christ accomplished; saved from out sins, but also saved from ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Hopesprings – well said. And I too hope that Beck – if he indeed is born again – will come to realize that he needs to leave his chosen organization for one that is faithful to the Scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Marvin. While I listen to Beck and resonate with and learn from much of what he says, the Mormon aspect, is making discernment difficult for me. Apart from that he truly seems to have his pulse on the ugly-not-so-underbelly of this regime. I value his work for that alone. And I have heard him proclaim Jesus as Lord many times. But there is always this creeping concern about how the massive theological differences may or not play into this.
Being a recovering addict is nothing to be ashamed of…
Report comment to moderator
I remember reading that article in 2002 on Mormonism and thinking “how is it that so many really intelligent people can believe historical facts about a civilization in B.C. North America for which there are no physical or archeological proofs”.
There are a number of physical and historical verifications of the Old and New Testament found even in the most unlikely places. But is there nothing of this “history” that Maroni told Joseph Smith about?
Report comment to moderator
Hey Marvin how about an interview in WORLD with Glenn Beck? Ask the questions we all are wanting to know! That’s what we rely on WORLD for!
Report comment to moderator
From the article at #34: (In the field of talk radio) Rush Limaugh is in a class all by himself. … There are other behind Rush, from Sean Hannitiy to Levin to Beck and so on. … Has anyone paid attention to the success of Sean Hannity’s Freedom Concerts? Here’s a guy who spent his vacation-less August trekking from city to city putting on star-studded musial extravaganzas at the rate of two a weekend… Sold out crowds. Tens and tens of thousand of people. Millions of dollars raised for a charity, the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund, a program to help educate the kids of those who were disabled or lost their lives… Hannity pays for chunks of this personally.
Report comment to moderator
“This man is a Mormon.”
Beck is also an American.
He was raised a Catholic and has “converted” which means he’s searching for something. We have common goals as Americans, whether we are Christian, Mormon, Jewish or Muslim. Try to see the good in the guy. We’re all on the same journey, whether we admit it or not, and some of us have a tougher row to hoe in one way or another. I have baggage from the church I grew up in, too, but basic fundamentals are pretty much the same. We know who is at the core — Jesus Christ, who is the Wat (Way).
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Olasky,
For what it’s worth, I too didn’t come to Glenn Beck easily.
I am now, however, motivated by two considerations:
(i) Glenn Beck is not the man I first listened to 4 years ago.
(ii) Glenn Beck has now shown through works that he is of ‘another order’. His accomplishments of the last two years – at least to me – make clear that he in turn has been selected and inspired by a force beyond our power to calibrate.
Glenn is filled with a light and wisdom that can only be God inspired. Upon sensing that, I chose to stop asking why.
He is for real and and I think our mission is to help.
Lew Pringle
Report comment to moderator
I think the thing that is weirdest to me about the Christian Right’s new wishy-washy feelings about Mormonism is that it seems to have arisen entirely in response to the fact that they realized that Beck was a spokesperson for their political beliefs. Once again, it’s showing what to me is a highly disturbing trend that has been growing among evangelicals to allow themselves to be relegated to a political movement.
Hey, I’m conservative. I vote that way because of my religious beliefs. I think that at least some of the issues that are flashpoints for conservatism are biblical. But at the same time, I want to keep my head on straight and not say anything ridiculous like the quote that I recently heard from Ann Coulter: “All liberals are atheists.” When we start equating political views with religious views, then of course theology and all the distinctives of our Christianity start falling away. After all, Beck is conservative!
Someone brought up David Barton. If you read his article about why Beck is actually a Christian, he says some things that reflect this highly disturbing trend. (http://www.facebook.com/notes/david-bartonwallbuilders/by-their-fruits/146539415375176) His basic argument is that Beck produces good fruit, by which he means Beck supports the conservative political and moral agenda. Really! Let us redefine the Gospel of Jesus Christ and center it around whether or not you support homosexuality or abortion!
I would argue that Beck is clearly producing bad fruit if we look at this ridiculous tendency that is emerging among supposedly Bible-believing Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I wrote an article as a sort of Christian response to the Beck rally, “sweet or Bitter”,
http://digitalpublius.blogspot.com/2010/08/sweet-or-bitter.html
That has garnered a reaction that I find quite troubling from some Christians who have read it. There is a sort of protect Beck attitude that is remarkably similar to the Christian Black folks that are willing to overlook Obama’s ungodly agenda and give him their votes.
The interesting thing is that the article really isn’t about Beck, but rather the Christians who are willing to ignore God’s admonishment to not be yoked spiritually with unbelievers. He he maintains his status as a Mormon, we as Christians have to recognize that his Jesus is not the Jesus of the Holy Bible.
Report comment to moderator
If Beck were a Jew or a Muslim who said the same things he’s been saying (minus his comments on Jesus), would you not consider him politically likeminded? And isn’t it better, when considering the vote, to work with likeminded people than with those who are not?
I don’t think you have to cut Beck a break on his Mormonism being heretical, but I also don’t think you have to reject his political views in doing so. There is common ground politically.
Report comment to moderator
I do not think that people are being unchristian for being conservative. People can certainly agree with his politics and still be Christian. I am not trying to argue that the proper Christian response is to have nothing to do with Beck or his conservative ideology.
However, I do think that it is highly disturbing that many traditionally conservative evangelicals are setting aside their faith and embracing Beck as a “brother” or a “brother in the faith” simply because they have the same political views as he does. Since when did Christianity become a political movement?
What has happened to our faith when we think that being against single-payer health care system is a fundamental of the Christian faith?
Report comment to moderator
NJL & Digital – think of the following illustration (not original to me) – if the main pipe bringing water to our city broke, I would work alongside anyone – including atheists – to fix it. I don’t believe that makes me yoked to them spiritually, just because we’re working on a common cause that generally benefits all of society.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t disagree with that, Buzzy. Politics is on a lower level than our salvation. There is common ground on that lower level, and that’s what America has been about — the common ground. I don’t see Beck’s program, but he seems to have hit on something that resonates with many, including myself, and that is that I want our nation to be restored to a better lower level. In no way, shape or form has it occurred to me to follow this guy into his version of heaven.
Report comment to moderator
“What has happened to our faith when we think that being against single-payer health care system is a fundamental of the Christian faith?”
I have never thought that. I think it’s against the Constitution. I don’t think they can mandate me to purchase a product, because if they can mandate one product purchase, they can mandate ANYTHING.
Report comment to moderator
Too many of these posts fail to distinguish between someone who does not reject Got yet has incorrect ideas about God, and someone who refuses to honor or fear God (i.e., Jer 5:22 or Jer 44:16). These are not to be “painted” with the similar brushes.
Report comment to moderator
Beck is on his journey, Lmennigen. He’s gone from RCC to Mormonism, and so far he hasn’t questioned that. One can only hope he will. I think we all have incorrect ideas about God at times in our lives. That doesn’t preclude us from finding common ground with him on the political level. It is harder for me to find common ground with people who have no real interest in God at all, who pay lipservice in order to get elected. Is that true of ALL Dems? Probably not, but they don’t ultimately vote in a way that gives me any confidence, so I don’t have political common ground with them.
Report comment to moderator
You’ve said it well about both Beck and Parker, however, I think it might help to clarify what Beck believes as said by Chuck Colson’ Breakpoint commentary (”Which God Should We Turn To? The ‘Restoring Honor’ Rally,” Sept. 3, 2010): “Even setting aside his Mormonism, Beck isn’t exactly solid on issues we hold dear: the sanctity of life, the traditional family, and the erosion of religious freedom. In Beck’s words ‘we have bigger fish to fry’ than these issues.”
It is amazing to me when Christians go head over heals for a charismatic leader without much understanding about whether this guy is really speaking for us. Come on, people, do your homework! I also eschew Parker as a true conservative and have taken issue with what she says about Palin by a published letter to the editor of our local newspaper.
Report comment to moderator
Fran Brodie did an excellent book on Mormonism’s founder “No Man Knows My History”. Smith was a fraud and the “revelation” was plagiarized from a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding. Read too about Fanny Alger and the “spiritual wives” or affairs Smith had. The Alger affair led Oliver Cowdery to renounce Smith
Subsequent Mormon leaders have rehabilitated Smith but that in no way changes him and his cultic church.
Also do a Google on Parley Pratt. Pratt’s brother left for England to spread LDS there. Smith took a shine to the missionaries wife and proposed a “spiritual marriage”. She rejected it.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, I have never watched Beck; I’m not sure I even heard of him until a few weeks ago, but I don’t watch much TV (really only if I’m at someone else’s house), and as far as I know I’ve never seen him. So I simply can’t say how much I’d find common cause with him politically. Other than post 56 (which is insightful) I don’t really see people here discussing that issue. I don’t think that an event where pastors are invited in large numbers and where we talk about getting back to God is a purely political rally. If we’d have problem with a Muslim hosting such a rally (and inviting huge numbers of Christian pastors) and reminding us of the need to get back to Allah, then we should have problems with a Mormon doing so, because the Mormon god is just as false. He just has a better PR department.
Maybe no one has mentioned it yet, but the Mormons are on a big PR push to be accepted as just a different Christian denomination. It was very evident in Salt Lake City when they had the Olympics, and it’s evident in their advertising. Personally, this looks like the biggest coup the Mormons ever made to be seen as a lot like us–unless Beck publicly distances himself from Mormonism, and soon. That pastors didn’t require that before the rally in order to be willing to stand up there and endorse his religious views by their presence is to me dangerous (he might well instead publicly endorse Mormonism, and then what do they do with the fact they’ve supported him?) and foolish (the pastors may be saying “We don’t really think he’s a Mormon anymore anyway,” but officially he is–and thus unofficially they’ve come only a step from endorsing Mormonism, way too close to be all that clear to their parishioners).
I truly think Satan is rubbing his hands in glee over this one, and that the Apostle Paul would be writing a letter starting with “O foolish Americans!”
Report comment to moderator
I guess I think of Beck, whom I too have never watched, as a political person. He had imams and rabbis there as well as Christian ministers, so I guess you are right that it was a religious revival meeting, but I think it was a very generic type of religious revival. I agree with you that Allah is not God, and that’s probably why I slot the event as a “political, common ground” event.
I don’t see Satan rubbing his hands in glee. Any time people make a move towards God, however, generic, however small, I think it bends him out of shape. Americans will never endorse a state religion, I certainly wouldn’t, but they will endorse a return to our creator endowed inalienable rights being paramount over the government takeover, and that’s what I see coming out of Beck’s efforts. And if it gets us together with non-Christians, it presents an opportunity for witness, something that also bends the devil out of shape.
Report comment to moderator
I truly think Satan is rubbing his hands in glee over this one, and that the Apostle Paul would be writing a letter starting with “O foolish Americans!”
Undoubtedly. But that ‘O foolish Americans!’ letter would have been started decades ago. Not on 8/28, people. And it would contain much MUCH more than an invective against Glenn Beck’s religion. That’s the least of our problems as a nation.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m still trying to pin down what I think about Glenn Beck, but I know what I think about many of his critics.” -Olasky
And there’s the rub. Christian conservatives seem to offer little in terms of a positive vision for America. Their political engagement is largely based on collective dislike of or resentment towards certain persons or certain social institutions. In that sense, being a Christian conservative relates much more to being a member of a cohesive identity group (i.e., the evangelical subculture) than to any creedal affirmation.
Beck–the entertainer that he is–knows well how to trade on the factors that have led to the formation of Christian conservatism as a subcultural identity group. In fact, he’s so good at it that at least one of the above comments has suggested that he must be inspired. Really? Do y’all really think that the canon is going to expand itself to a 67th book to encompass the political views of a Mormon TV personality. Lord help us.
Report comment to moderator
Having been raised Catholic and converted to Mormonism, Beck is apostate rather than a “heretic” (#37). That’s worse, in the scheme of things. Heretics are people like John Milton who remained Christian while asserting an unorthodox teaching. (Milton clearly demarcates his view of creation in De doctrina as unorthodox.) Apostates, on the other hand, are defectors from Christianity. This includes religion switchers as well as atheists. Goethe was apostate. Although he called himself a Christian, he also said he wasn’t, or was the only Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Since (according to Olasky) adultery disqualifies people from positions of trust, why tolerate addicts?
I disagree with Olasky’s suggestion that all people have additive personalities. Addiction is different than ordinary psychological dependency. It’s defined as a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory, and other things.
Report comment to moderator
I implore all of you who have been critical of the involvement of those christians who “stood with” Glenn Beck at his “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington D.C. on August 28, 2010, to examine an excellent article by Dr. Jim Garlow, Senior Pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. This is a first hand commentary by Dr. Garlow.
The article is found at http://www.wallbuilders.com and it is found under the heading “Evangelicals and Glenn Beck.”
Report comment to moderator
#47, HANS – “I think the thing that is weirdest to me about the Christian Right’s new wishy-washy feelings about Mormonism is that it seems to have arisen entirely in response to the fact that they realized that Beck was a spokesperson for their political beliefs.”
Huh? What wishy-washy feelings about Mormonism? I have seen no sign of that. Your very presumption is flawed.
What I like about the Christian right is that they can evaluate an “ism” to the point of rejection, independently of evaluating a human being to the point of acceptance. That is classic fair-mindedness.
Find a quote or message of Beck’s that you disagree with and tell us why.
And I love the fact that Evangelicals are not easily intimidated to the point of retreating from the legitimate world of politics, which needs they voice desperately.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu, a link to that column was already posted above, and it has been included in the discussion (post 19 gives the link, post 36 my own response to it). Thanks, though.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it would not surprise me to see all sorts of view out there by all sorts of people about Mormonism. Nothing new there. I just like the focus on restoring honor.
Good thoughts at #51 – Buzzy.
Thanks for the Colson quote Shellbiz. That is helpful.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl (#66),
Sorry about that.
I’ve been in and out today and, somehow, I missed it.
My question to you: did you read it?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
You said at #36: “I don’t care how pure their motives are, and this is why: They are knowingly lending their support to a heretic who has not renounced his heresy. This is wrong. If they wished to be part of this event, and believed Beck to have renounced his heresy but not yet made it public, then biblically they really must verify where he stands.”
I submit that Dr. Garlow has refuted what you have said.
Report comment to moderator
I also just read the link in post 48 and recommend it.
This has been a wonderful, important discussion, by the way. I’m quite distressed by the side many I respect have taken in this discussion, but not by the tone, and it has been a good discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu, I didn’t see any such refutation, only “I know he’s a Christian because he says the right words.” With Mormons, one MUST go a step farther: Does he not only say the right words, but disavow the false doctrine? If he isn’t willing to disavow Mormonism, he may somehow be a baby Christian anyway, but he is not someone we can support, since he himself is still in support of one of the trickiest lies Satan ever invented, Mormonism.
While a man is a Mormon, even if he is genuinely a Christian also (I can’t judge that) he is, at best, a brother in serious error. It is legitimate for a pastor to meet with him one-on-one in order to judge his true relationship with Christ and to encourage him to disavow this error; it is not legitimate to seem to support him in a generic “religious” gathering, and in so doing make Mormonism appear to be nothing more than a different denomination with which we are not in full agreement.
Mormonism is deadly error. If Glenn Beck does not recant it, he is not a believer, or he is in serious confusion over what his religion teaches. No pastor can claim to love him and refuse to deal with this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t be distressed Cheryl, the discussion is not a has been – it still continues. I don’t have to agree with Beck on everything in order to appreciate his focus on the honor of our Founding Fathers, or his emphasis on remembering faith, hope and charity.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, we must separate Glen Back the Mormon (which is a false religion) and Glen Beck, the man who has study our Founding Father and the History of our Nation and the Progressive Movement.
Glen Back the Mormon, if he has embrace the Morman Church an it’s teaching. He is not a Christian and can not get to heaven. No matter, what he says…. The Mormon Church uses Christian Terms but they have different meanings and are not based on the Bible, but the Book of Mormans, etc
Report comment to moderator
I’m not certain whether a few folks here understand the criticms that have been made IRT Beck and his Mormonism. The issue isn’t so much with Beck himself (though he does have that whole Mormonism problem), but with [a] some Christians’ affirmation of Beck’s religious language even though we all (should) know the meaning of his terms is unorthodox; and [b] the reluctance to “call out” a professing Mormon for subscribing to what is clearly heretical doctrine. Whether it’s lack of discernment, or politics trumping theology, I’m not sure, but we should take more care in what we approve.
Report comment to moderator
the reluctance to “call out” a professing Mormon for subscribing to what is clearly heretical doctrine. Whether it’s lack of discernment, or politics trumping theology, I’m not sure, but we should take more care in what we approve.
—
MacRutabaga, I believe there is a place and a time to address such issues… Such meet to me unless God moves in such away is not the right time or place. Using such a meeting as a chance to meet privately with Becky in order to talk about such an issue. may be the right way to go.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: That’s fine, but I’m saying we’re not doing Glenn Beck (or any “seekers” listening to us) any favors when we fail to inform him his views are not consonant with scripture. *In this very thread, and others on this site,* Christians have affirmed not only Beck’s vague references to “God”, but to some degree, even his Mormonism itself! It makes me wonder how discerning we are in “real life.”
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga – I agree with what you are saying, look at my posting at 73. but there is a time and place for every thing. We must listen aand obey when God tells us to speak and when He tells us to be quiet
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, I would say that a pastor should not show up at such a gathering and thus seek to endorse it, unless he has previously had such a meeting with Beck in which Beck has stated he is not in agreement with Mormon doctrine, or has publicly done so in conversation with someone else. Would you agree with that? I agree that the assembly itself was not the place, but the pastors should not have been there (in large numbers!) seeming to approve of Beck’s Mormonism being compatible with Christianity unless they knew he had turned his back on Mormonism.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know if I’ll be opening a can of worms here, but we had many a discussion about Mormonism during the presidential primary season and many were opposed to Romney. Considering we have who we have in the Oval Office, has anyone changed their mind about Romney or would you still refuse to vote for him for president?
Report comment to moderator
Macrutabaga wrote; “I’m not sure, but we should take more care in what we approve.”
Absolutely. That sums it up! And in taking such care, we can approve the message of restoring honor and respecting our Founders and being grateful for them and for our country, while not approving Mormon doctrine.
Thanks Macrutabaga. You nailed it.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Hey, was “Becky” a Freudian slip? Big
Report comment to moderator
#78 – Cheryl wrote; “I would say that a pastor should not show up at such a gathering and thus seek to endorse it…” (see the whole quote at #78).
I disagree. A Christian should listen to the leading of God’s Holy Spirit on such things. I could respect either choice on such an option and I would not in a million years presume that a Christian (or pastor) was endorsing Mormonism just because he went to this rally (or claiming that Christianity is compatible with Mormonism). It would never even occur to me to presume that. Plus, I think in such a situations as this, the same criteria goes for pastors as for Christians (”priesthood of all believers” and all that).
Report comment to moderator
Romney gave the best speech on religious freedom that I have heard in my lifetime early in 2008. It was a great speech, no matter what else you think of him and his faith. Let’s be honest enough to call a spade a spade.
Report comment to moderator
NJL, that was before my time on WMB and I was always for Romney as the better man for POTUS at this time. And I’ve been wondering what he thinks of Beck’s approach to politics. Do Mormons really value recent converts as equals? Beck uses religious terminology that includes Christians and Mormons in a troubling universal kind of way. But he openly acknowledges that most Christians do not include him, as a Mormon, as a fellow Christian.
I have so many more thoughts on this, along the line of Marvin Olasky and my own disinclinations, that I don’t know where to begin. At the very least he’s become another paranoid obsession for the Lefties.
I also wonder what Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid thinks of Beck – really! All Mormon converts are not equal.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark I absolutely remember that speech by Romney and trust that he meant every word of it. Thanks for the reminder – I’ll go back and reread it.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. it depends was it a relgious meeting or a call to action of the next’s election?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I think a pastor could show up somewhere as a citizen. But if he’s showing up and “being counted” as one of the pastors there, then I have a problem with that, because he’s lending his endorsement at that point. Agree that there’s a difference?
Report comment to moderator
We certainly shouldn’t go on an evangelistic outreach with people of other faiths, but shouldn’t we be willing to participate in events with people from other religions where the reason for gathering in like-mindedness has nothing to do with the non-negotiable essentials of Christianity?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus (and others): It *might* be fine to take the stage and cooperate with Mormons (and other pagans) to advocate various causes. But Beck prominently inserts “God” into the equation. What I’ve been saying all along is that, when Beck continually invokes “God” in a speech, and then we Christians cheer the references, we’re participating in the veneration of a false God, or, at the very least, giving the impression to others (Mormons, or those unaware of the doctrinal particulars) that it is *OK* to subscribe to Mormon beliefs. Beck’s comments have been widely broadcast. It is *urgent* we make it known that we Christians do not worship the same God as he. This concern should not be the foreign concept it seems to be to so many here.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve not read ALL the posts above, so may have missed some important points…. but I DO listen to and watch GB regularly and attended the DC rally on 8/28 (my first time in DC) – and I have to say that I agree with mrs.news2me:
“Hearing Glenn speak in the past about his “Christianity” I feel that he knows what is right. He just wants a nice community for his family and is turning a blind eye to what lurks within that community.”
… and with Chas:
“I have never heard him describe Jesus other than his saviour and Lord. He has never stated that there are three Gods. Nor mentioned that Jesus will return to Independence, Mo. I am convinced that Beck is a “born again” Christian if he believes what he says.”
…. and with KI:
“At this point, God will meet him where he is, just as he has met us all where we are and then wooed us to Himself.”
If God can (and has) used a donkey, He can use a Mormon. We do need to listen closely to what he says and judge it by THE WORD. But to this point, judging from what he SAYS, I have to say that he is NOT really Mormon as he thinks he is. He has surrounded himself with solid Christian people – including David Barton, Sarah Palin, Alveda King, Dave Roever, Miles McPherson, and several others who I am convinced have shared the true Gospel with him. PRAY for him – for his true salvation and his protection – he is DOING the work that God has assigned him and he IS in danger from those who mean him harm. It saddens me that we seem to worry more about how someone might be WRONG than about praying for us all to recognize truth.
Report comment to moderator
Beck himself has acknowledged there are differences in his faith and the Christian faith. He knows most Christians do not consider him saved or accept his Mormonism. None of that is secret.
Frankly, if your children etc. do not know already that there are problems with Mormonism, I am not sure what you have been doing.
Report comment to moderator
Good grief. What a sad thread.
Report comment to moderator
Surrounding yourself with “solid Christian people” is also good politically, wouldn’t you think? I am still scratching my head over this one. I just don’t get it. We scrutinize everyone’s faith, but somehow Glenn Beck seems to be passing the “Christian litmus test” because of his “God words”.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you, Hopesprings, that Glenn Beck, could be a complete phony, using Chrisitians. He can surround himself with whomever he wants, he can use lots of good sounding words. That is also true of anyone who has to answer to a church board for membership qualifications or baptism. The church is full of wheat and tares, let alone our country.
However, if Christians cannot join with others or be present when they pray, in reality they must quit politics altogether. That is what some advocate. This is because from the city council mtgs. to state conventions and on up to the Congress building itself, there will be prayers offered in ways and in religions that Christians simply do not agree with or have anything to do with. It is the reality of our nation today.
I never attended the rally or recommended Glenn Becks programs or show to anyone, but I have seen the show and realize that he has been able to get out a lot of information out that needs to be out there.
What God will do in this country is another thing I don’t know. I know that if we do not have a real revival and another Great Awakening, our country is gone. I knew that long before I ever heard of Glenn Beck. I also know this country is not the center of God’s plans and never has been. If it goes, so be it.
I also know true revival will show itself in repentence and a return to the one, true God. It will not be a politic thing, but politics will be affected, just as many other areas will be.
Report comment to moderator
Mac (89): Is God not invoked at a pro-life rally? At a campaign for Proposition 8? It seems that you are saying we should only ever participate in such events only if Evangelicals are in attendance.
Report comment to moderator
Bev (#90),
Thank you for your comments; they are very important because you were at the rally!
But, we must not forget to pray for Glenn Beck’s wife – she is the mormon.
Report comment to moderator
It’s too bad that Olasky feels snooted upon, since he follows a religion that commands him to turn the other cheek. It’s also too bad that the blessed meek are flocking to the shepherds who employ a business model of gratifying feelings of insult, grievance, and resentment.
Too bad, because America needs an Evangelical assessment of Beck more badly than it needs a slap-down of Kathleen Parker.
Meanwhile Olasky’s advice is bad. You’ve got to keep thinking y’all are virtuous and liberals are vicious. You’re pro-life and they’re murderers, remember? If you let yourselves think that liberals are not the vicious ones, you will only betray the innocent fetuses and cover your pride with a false mask of humility. Yours is to execute the judgments of God and leave mercy to Him.
No, he’s not talking about Adam’s Fall. He’s talking about being on the right side of the culture war against people who are on the wrong side. Let’s stay honest.
Report comment to moderator
Above, I meant that America needs a Christian assessment of Beck. We’ve already got the Evangelical assessment. It was up there on the platform behind him.
Report comment to moderator
Ha. Scroop, I had no idea you felt so strongly about America’s need for an ‘Evangelical assessment’ of anything. Maybe there’s more than a little self interest in your desire?
Report comment to moderator
Nice save.
Report comment to moderator
Now, by ‘Christian’ I’m assuming you mean someone like, oh say…Jim Wallis?
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus, 95,
I’m not sure the Christians in attendance knew Glenn Beck would be calling on God throughout his speech at this rally, but they probably should have. On that basis–and this is only my personal scruple–I would have advised we Christians not attend. But I’m fully persuaded that no Christian should have cheered on Beck when he called on God. Likewise, I’m certain that those in this thread who affirm even the religious content of Beck’s speech are in serious error for reasons I’ve already mentioned a few times.
Report comment to moderator
The public discourse is so corrupted by cheap shot dismissals like Parker’s. Marvin skewers her fittingly. It is remarkable how much ad hominem is thrown at conservative speakers without the slightest admonition from media elites. So do we want discourse and dialogue, or orthodoxy and character assassins?
Report comment to moderator
Mark30339: Beck’s show is composed of a lot of ridicule. What do we do with that stuff?
Report comment to moderator
What little I have seen of Glenn Beck’s show, I saw positive affirmations of our Founders and the principles on which they stood. It was not a deep treatment of those topics but it was fair and I appreciated it. I did not see or hear ridicule. I also know it was Beck who rightly and fittingly outed some people in the Obama administrations who have extremist and radical (even Marxist in one case) backgrounds and convictions. That truth-telling, not ridicule. The media seem to hate him for doing their job for them and doing it better than they do it too. As for all the other stuff, who knows?
Report comment to moderator
I have listened carefully to Glenn to try to ascertain if he is truly born again. While we are not to “judge” we must be careful to discern as he is a professing Mormon. So, my humble conclusion is that I think that he may be a born again “Mormon” in the same way that I have met born again Catholics. I pray that God (through the Holy Spirit) will reveal to him His truth about who Jesus is (God incarnate and nothing less)and that He will continue to use him as a voice calling people to turn to the living God.
Report comment to moderator
We need to draw a disticntio between the fact that while one may not hold to orthodox view of Christianity (Mormonism is defined as a cult by all leading Christian scholars), one can still have a biblical worldview on how one thinks about the spheres of labor, government, community involvement, charity, anthropology and for example believe in man being “created in the image of God” and therefore advance the sanctity of life. So, while we can agree that Beck is unorthodox in his view of the atonement and the Trinity, his view on the purpose of the state can certainly be sound. See Abraham Kuyper and go though the Truth Project video series for more.
Report comment to moderator
Those who discount Beck’s Mormonism are missing an important point. Beck just held a rally on the national mall where he proclaimed that we need to return to God. One WorldMag editor referred to this event as a tent revival. Other evangelicals noted ow they appreciated Beck’s focus on religion instead of politics. So, if you say that you embrace Beck because of his political views, but not because of his religion, then it seems that you are refusing to embrace a central part of Beck’s message.
Of course, it’s noteworthy in several respects. Only a couple of the founding fathers viewed God in a manner that is consistent with the Christian God. Their references to God or to the Creator are merely to a civil-religious deity who’s a lot like the God of deism. When beck asks us to return to God, I agree that he is not necessarily asking us to embrace a Mormon God. Of course, as a non-Christian, it’s implausible that he’s asking us to return to a Christian God either. No. He’s asking us to return to the civil-religious deistic God of the founding fathers.
I’ll pass on Beck’s invitation. Idolatry doesn’t suit me.
Report comment to moderator
RSD wrote; “[If] you say that you embrace Beck because of his political views, but not because of his religion, then it seems that you are refusing to embrace a central part of Beck’s message.”
What’s the problem with that? To whatever extent his message is Mormonism (and I have not heard him make a big point of that), I do refuse to embrace it. It does not seem to me, however, to be a central part of his message–though I am not a regular listener. But as Netprophet made clear, that does not make him wrong on his message regarding the purpose of the state, the sanctity of life, the greatness of our unique history and so on.
Conservatives use their brains to make healthy intellectual and spiritual distinctions. We think for ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
Nearly all the Founders (including Jefferson) used the adjective “Christian” to refer to themselves. Some had mixed reviews for how they lived their Christianity out and there was doctrinal diversity among them. So, while the Founders were a mixed bag doctrinally, they were all quite united in being so positive and respectful of the Christianity of their day in America. They wanted it enriched and the wanted it to be free to flourish.
SO I disagree with RSD. When our Founders referred to “the Creator” and to “God,” it was not merely to some civil-religious deity but to the actual AUTHOR of our natural rights and liberties as a people. They referred to a God whose “Providence” can be seen in history and int the progress of rights and freedoms on earth (which is not deistic at all).
Report comment to moderator
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
Report comment to moderator
Hope, what was orthodox Christianity in those days? The Church of England?
And then Mr. Jefferson said, . . . .
Report comment to moderator
Many of the founders were Unitarians. Some were deists. Some were traditional Christians.
I don’t understand why some conservative Christians are so unwilling to admit the obvious truth that the Founders had a diversity of religious views.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, in Jefferson’s day Unitarianism was considered a sect of Christianity, not the UU bent of today.
It’s commonly admitted knowledge among Christians today that our Founders had a diversity of Christian beliefs. Jefferson wrote:
“To the corruptions of Christianity, I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished any one to be; sincerely attached to His doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to Himself every human excellence, and believing He never claimed any other.” (Unitarian-Universalist website bibliography)
Report comment to moderator
Louise: Yes, I know. But Unitarianism began as a heresy that rejected the Trinity and argued that God is one (i.e., a Unity, hence, Unitarian.) The original Unitarians did not see Jesus as the divine Son of God or God incarnate. They saw Jesus as either a prophet in the style of Isaiah or Jeremiah (strongly God-inspired but not God) or as a supernatural being created by God to be God’s emissary, but not God himself.
This set them apart from the Trinitarians in a non-trivial way, so that those conservative Christians today who would try to claim the 18th-Century Unitarians as fellow Christians are reaching across a chasm to do so.
The quote from Jefferson is a good example of Unitarian Christianity. He sees Jesus not as a miracle working savior, but as an unusually good and wise, but still fully human, man.
“… ascribing to Himself every human excellence, and believing He never claimed any other.” That is, Jesus may have claimed for himself every human excellence, but not divine excellence, in Jefferson’s view.
Report comment to moderator
Conan is incorrect. None of the Founders were “Unitarians” in the sense of that denomination today (which did not really come into its own unill the early 1800s). A few may have been unitarians iwth a small “u” in that they questioned the orthodox view of the Trinity, but none were “Unitarians” with a big “U”.
Report comment to moderator
Conan wrote; “I don’t understand why some conservative Christians are so unwilling to admit the obvious truth that the Founders had a diversity of religious views.”
I’m not sure I understand where you got that idea. They were diverse in their stances on orthodox Christianity, but they did not belong to different “religions” with different “religious views.” I, for one, have been making the point that they were a mixed bag for years on this blog. But they were united in their respect for public Christianity and the people’s full freedom to practice it (and even other religions) and express it publicly.
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson’s lifestyle was also not orthodox Christian. But Louise is correct, he did consider himself a “Christian.” Many other Founders were orthodox trinitarians but all those differences were not pertinent to their role as Founders. What they agreed on was that our nation should protect our freedom of faith and it’s expression, and they respected the essential role of religion and Christianity (and its moral principles) in maintaining our nation’s virtue from the inside out.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: Conan is incorrect. None of the Founders were “Unitarians” in the sense of that denomination today (which did not really come into its own unill the early 1800s). A few may have been unitarians iwth a small “u” in that they questioned the orthodox view of the Trinity, but none were “Unitarians” with a big “U”.
No sir, you do not know Unitarian history.
First of all, I did not claim that they were Unitarian Universalists in the sense of the modern UU. That organization did not exist until 1961.
But Unitarian Christianity has been around a very long time.
Unitarianism began to flourish in Transylvania (of all places) in the 1500s, and King John Sigismund, widely regarded as the first and only Unitarian king, issued an edict of religious tolerance in 1568 that declared that there would be no official religion for Transylvania.
Unitarian congregations began to arise in that country, and the term “Unitarian” was in use to describe them by 1600. Unitarianism became recognized in England as a formal Christian denomination in 1774, though it had been around, as I said, for quite a while before that.
And really, whether the U is big or small is immaterial — if they rejected the orthodox view of the Trinity, they were not traditional Christians. Jefferson, John and Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams and Paul Revere were all Unitarians by belief, and Benjamin Rush was a Universalist, another heretical stance.
Report comment to moderator
JM: I’m not sure I understand where you got that idea. They were diverse in their stances on orthodox Christianity, but they did not belong to different “religions” with different “religious views.”
No, that’s not correct. This is not just a matter of Baptist vs. Quaker vs. Anglican. There were deists and unitarians (and at least one universalist) among them, and those are simply not versions of orthodox Christianity. From the standpoint of orthodox Christianity, those are heresies.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Jefferson considered himself a unitarian Christian, meaning he rejected the deity of Christ and the doctrine of atonement, and also famously created a version of the gospels with all the miraculous and messianic parts excised.
If he walked into your church next Sunday and preached that from the pulpit, would you claim him as a fellow Christian?
Report comment to moderator
Conan, I was commenting on your use of the capital “U” which I consider to be misleading to some. That is not immaterial in my view.
And we are not talking about Transylvania or European manifestations for Unitarianism. We are talking about America and our Founders. The founding era was too early to be meaningfully tied to the American “Unitarian” movement. The earliest observable roots in America for the Unitarian movement today began to grow int the early and mid 19th century.
There were only a few small pockets of advocacy for unbiblical universlaist thought during the founding era, which today’s Unitarians and Universalists try too hard to inflate and apply to the Founders personally.
The early Universalist Church of America was not founded until 1793.
Early Unitarian doctrine was expressed by William Ellery Channing in a famous Baltimore sermon of 1819. This led to the founding of the American Unitarian Association as a separate denomination in 1825.
At the same time that the Unitarian and Universalist impulses were growing in America, so was the Second Great Awakening (which had a far more powerful AND positive ongoing effect on us than did the Unitarians and Universalists). So America did have some very positive spiritual developments in the early 19th century as well.
The 1870s and 1880s saw a sharp downturn in the Unitarian denomination’s fortunes. In 1961, Unitarians and Universalists consolidated to form the new religion of Unitarian Universalism. And it was indeed a “new religion” which most of our founders would not claim or recognize.
The Founders together held Christianity in high regard and wanted public expression of it to be protected. I do not need to agree with some of their private claims in order to respect their positive influence in passing a legacy of religious liberty to their decendants.
______
John Adams and his son John Quincy, were lifelong members of the local Congregationalist Church (not Unitarians in any formal or movement sense). Their Puritan roots were clear. And John Quincy was a very committed Christian thinker and Bible reader.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
I disagree with you over what entails a new religion. Unorthodoxy among confessing Christians may be disagreed with, but I don’t think it is necessarily accurate to call them “new religions.” They are new sects and new variations of the diverse Christian tradition.
I know of no real traditional or classic deists at all among the Founders (though there may be some isolated example). But nearly all of them believed in a God who worked actively among men and in the real world providentially.
I let God judge all herisies ultimately and in the end.
Report comment to moderator
Again, the point is that the Founders universally agreed on their great respect for Christianity and the fact that Americans should be free in the way they publicly practice and express their faith (”congress shall make no law…”). And that’s why I am so grateful to them. I never thought or expected them all to agree on all points of doctrine. I respect them as Founders, not necessarily as pastors or theologians.
Report comment to moderator
Mormon, Schmormon. Orthodox- or not. Trinitarian… Unitarian. Man looks at labels. God looks at the heart. I’m glad all you labelers aren’t God.
Report comment to moderator
Fritz, people label themselves. Truth in labeling is the place to start.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I think you’re splitting hairs. I’ll grant that Jefferson, Adams, et al, probably did not attend churches with the word “Unitarian” in their name.
But it’s also true that they did hold unitarian beliefs including denial of the deity of Christ. They revered Jesus the man as teacher and philosopher, but did not accept Christ as savior and incarnation of God. They were ahead of the curve in America, but not in Europe — which is where they and their recent ancestors had come from.
It’s not a trivial point of doctrine; it excludes them from traditional Trinitarian Christianity.
Again, the point is that the Founders universally agreed on their great respect for Christianity and the fact that Americans should be free in the way they publicly practice and express their faith (”congress shall make no law…”). And that’s why I am so grateful to them. I never thought or expected them all to agree on all points of doctrine. I respect them as Founders, not necessarily as pastors or theologians.
I agree with you on this. But it wasn’t just that they had great respect for Christianity; it’s also that they had great respect for human freedom of thought. And for that we should all be grateful.
Report comment to moderator
Not quite, Louise. I’m talking about people labeling others, not themselves. Truth in labeling? Judge not, lest ye be not judged. You will know them by their fruits, not the labels others ascribe to them.
Report comment to moderator
No, no, Fritz. You cited the self-selected denominational labels – not what others label them. The “Judge not…” verse refers to judging another’s salvation as if we were God. What we are told to judge are all kinds of actions, beliefs and deeds.
Truth in labeling begins with those who honestly define what they call themselves, not what others ascribe to them.
Report comment to moderator
What we are told to judge are all kinds of actions, beliefs and deeds
—
Louise – in our judging those actions are we not then judging the person relationship with Christ?
The Mormon says they are Christian and have a relationship with Jesus Christ, do they not? If so are they Christian’s or not?
Report comment to moderator
Debra — I’m not sure exactly what I mean about America needing a “Christian” assessment of its present political passions. I’m just feeling some nostalgia about the kindly, tolerant, good — yes, meek — Christians that Evangelicals used to be, in my experience. I would enjoy hearing some of the old timers say a word or two about what’s happening. They might agree with me, finally! I don’t listen to Jim Wallis, who seems like a triangulator. I do listen to conservatives, particularly David Brooks and Ross Douthat. Their mission, however, is to annoy and torment liberals at the NYTimes rather than to rebuke right-wingers on World Mag.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, you make a good point. Discernment is what I really meant instead of judging what other people say and do. I don’t judge the salvation of a self-proclaimed Christian who does things that I wouldn’t, but I can still think what they do is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Discernment I believe is being losted with in today church.
Report comment to moderator
The Founders held Christianity in high regard and wanted public expression of it to be protected. We do not need to agree with some of their private claims (which changed in many cases over time, sometimes toward and sometimes away from orthodoxy) in order to respect their positive influence in passing a legacy of religious liberty to us. I am grateful to them, not necessarily as pastors or theologians, but as statemen and Founders.
And I see that you are using the big “U” and little “u” in a way that is more clear. That was my point at the less central level in the discussion in the first place. What they, in general, did with Christ is something I don’t agree that you have a good grasp of, but I can leave that to God.
Report comment to moderator
David Brooks is Jewish. You’re not going to get a Christian assessment from him.
You have to also remember that Jesus wasn’t always meek and mild either. If he came to the US, he’d tell us to clean it up.
Report comment to moderator
David Brooks is a notorious booster of all things Evangelical, from Purpose Driven Life to this newest gem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
He delights in presenting his beloved “bozos” to the arch liberal readers of the NYTimes as sources of the deepest wisdom. David Brooks is an expert authority on American Christianity — I’d even call him an exponent. He understands that without Evangelicalism there would be no American conservativism. So he’s joined at the hip, so to speak, even though he’s only Jewish.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!